Reconsidering aspectuality: interrelations between grammatical

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(1) Vendler Dik State Situation Activity Activity Achievement Process Accomplishment Accomplishment There is, however, an important difference: Vendler’s is a verb classification, while Dik’s typology is based on predications. It is interesting to compare these classifications with the one presented by Durst-Andersen and Herslund (1996: 67-68). These authors take their starting point in the perceptual notion of picture, which is regarded as “the mediating link between reality and mind”. 3 They distinguish between actions and non-actions. The latter are further subdivided into states and activities. While activities and states manifest themselves in reality, actions are constructs with no original in reality. An action manifests itself either as a state situation conceived to be caused by a prior activity, ie as an event, or as an activity situation perceived as intended to cause a future state, ie as a process. As shown above, the “Aktionsart” subarea, a matter of intrinsic lexical coding, is captured in Dik’s typology of SoAs (Dik 1997: 221). And it is precisely the classification of states of affairs which determines the general approach to aspect and tense followed in FG, specifying the nature of the interaction between lexical and grammatical aspect (cf. Siewierska 1991: 44). In FG the category of grammatical aspect is divided into four subareas, as shown in (2) (cf. Dik 1997: 221): (2) i. Perfectivity vs Imperfectivity: Perfective: The SoA is presented from an outside point of view Imperfective: The SoA is presented from an inside point of view, as being incomplete or in progress. ii. Phasal aspect: Ingressive, Progressive, Continuous and Egressive Aspect iii. Quantificational aspect: Iterative, Habitual, and Frequentative iv. Perspectival aspect: Prospective, Immediate Prospective, Recent Perfect, and Perfect Aspect. 3 This position seems to be in accordance with the FG approach, where SoAs do not represent real-world situations, but “the codified view of reality built into the grammar of a language” (Siewierska 1991: 43-44). 3
The two first subgroups (ie Perfectivity/Imperfectivity and Phasal Aspects) are called “internal aspects”, as they primarily concern the internal dynamics of the SoAs. Quantificational Aspects, which concern different types of quantification over SoAs, and Perspectival Aspects, which concern the relevance of the SoA to an external temporal reference point, are labelled “external aspects” (Dik 1997: 225). 4 In what follows, I will focus on the opposition perfective/imperfective, studying the interaction between imperfectivity and telicity (see section 2.2.2). It should be noted that the English Progressive, though expressing one dimension of what may be covered by the Imperfective of other languages, cannot be equated with the Imperfective Aspect as such (cf. Dik 1997: 224). However, as pointed out by Comrie (1976: 7), the opposition progressive vs. non-progressive, grammatically expressed by means of a verbal periphrasis in English, is to a certain extent comparable to the perfective/imperfective distinction, which has not been grammaticalized in this language. 5 2.2. Telicity: a controversial parameter 6 2.2.1. Telicity vs momentaneousness As shown above, telicity is one of the parameters applied in the FG typology of SoAs. In FG a telic SoA is defined as one that is fully achieved only if it reaches its natural terminal point (cf. Dik 1997: 108). On the other hand, atelic SoAs, which lack an inherent terminal point, are completely realized whenever they obtain. Compare with Comrie’s definition of a telic situation: (3) (...) “a telic situation is one that involves a process that leads up to a well-defined terminal point, beyond which the process cannot continue”. (Comrie 1976: 45) 4 Comrie (1976: 3-5) defines aspect as a way of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation. From this definition, formulated essentially in semantic terms, it is evident that aspect is connected with time. However, as stated by the author, aspect and tense are two distinct categories, concerned with time in very different ways: “Aspect is not concerned with relating the time of the situation to another time-point, but rather with the internal temporal constituency of the one situation; one could state the difference as one between situation-internal time (aspect) and situation-external time (tense)”. 5 Progressiveness, one of the semantic subdivisions of Imperfectivity cf. Dik 1997: 223) is defined by Comrie (1976: 33) as “imperfectivity that is not occasioned by habituality”. 6 As Siewierska (1991: 232; n 12) indicates, telicity is used in FG in accordance to what Dahl (1981: 81) calls the “Western” as opposed to the “Eastern” tradition. 4
Page 1 and 2: working papers in functional gramma
Page 3: 2. Aspectuality in FG 2.1. “Aspec
Page 7 and 8: of the referent of the noun filling
Page 9 and 10: ecause it does not represent the si
Page 11 and 12: (14) a. Sam talked for an hour. [-b

Reconsidering aspectuality: interrelations between grammatical

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?